Because Veith's other text "Postmodern Times" was largely informative and interesting, I expected more from "State of the Arts" than it was able to deliver. But before I address its shortcomings, my admiration for Veith's undertaking must be made clear. He should be praised for addressing the contemporary arts from a Christian perspective, as few Christians actually give attention to this highly influential cultural force. Too many Christians have abandoned the arts and sought spiritual solace in gated Christian ghettos. Yet Christ calls us to be salt and light in the world and the art world is not to be excluded. Thank you Veith for bringing attention to this part of the world and its need for Christ's redemption.
With that said, there are some reasons "State of the Arts" should not be regarded as a guidebook for an Evangelical entry into the world of art. Because it was written shortly after the Mapplethorpe and NEA controversy, Veith's weakly cloaked hostility runs through book like a greased pig. While I do believe that his engagement with the art world was sincere, his frequent lapses into name-calling and stereotyping only hurt his credibility and call into question his objectivity. I suppose some examples are due:
1) According to Veith, the art patrons who refuse to be shocked by Mapplethorpe "think, How interesting. They experience the exquisite pleasure of feeling sophisticated, of belonging to an elite group who "gets it," while looking down on those who do not. The outrage or bewilderment of those outside the art world only increase their smugness at being on the cutting edge." (p. 20)
Here, Veith is perpetuating two myths that must be countered. One, the art world is not an homogeneous group of rich snobs who "feel sophisticated" and laugh at those who are excluded from their arty antics. On the contrary, it is widely diverse so as to preclude any attempt at unification. The plurality is mind-boggling. Two, not everyone in the cultural elite "refused to be shocked." By incessantly referring to `these people' as the type that uncritically accept shock-art, Veith reveals his ignorance of the vast amount of art criticism written on such works and the wide verity of responses given. He might be surprised at what he finds. Such errors and offenses caused by Veith's concealed anger are common in this book.
2) Because Veith is not adequately familiar with art criticism, philosophy of art, nor modern and contemporary art history, his account of art world practices is embarrassingly bizarre.
Apparently, in minimalist art, "the concept claims precedence over artfulness. Technical execution and crafting of an object becomes less important than having a clever idea. The urinal installed on a museum wall, Warhol's Brillo boxes, the signed bicycle wheel -such pieces show no artistic qualities, nor do they intend to. They may be humorous, or clever, or suggestive of the nature of contemporary culture, but they can hardly be considered good art. To judge them so, ironically, is to miss the artist's point and fail to see the joke." (p. 51)
One not need to be familiar with the works, artists, and movements Veith attempts to explain in these awkward statements, but it is important to recognize that he has conflated artworks ranging over a seventy year period, on two continents, in three different historical contexts. Yet Veith sees them all as having a single covert, unified, devious purpose. One wonders how such artists and movements collaborated under such spacio-temporal restrictions. Rather, it would be more helpful to consult any dictionary of art or art history text to find a more reliable diagnosis than Veith has provided.
3) Because Veith is more interested in writing a polemic against (his perception of) the art world than sensitively engaging with art, he inadvertently contradicts himself in different places.
"Minimalism-finding the least possible gesture to constitute a work of art -has been fashionable in modern art, but such a movement is negligible aesthetically. The more a form is pared down, the less there is to evaluate." (p. 50) Yet Veith has no trouble evaluating and praising the aesthetic merits of work that is itself minimalist (p. 185 and 189). This is because, no doubt, the makers of the work are Christians. This aesthetic duplicity in Veith is unfortunate. The real criterion being used in his "aesthetic judgment" is the theology of the artist, which begs the question of understanding art from a Christian point of view.
These criticism of "State of the Arts" are strong, but apt in my estimation. I urge those who seek engagement with art to do so under the guidance of either Hans Rookmaaker or Leland Ryken who have more expertise in art criticism while maintaining a strong evangelical faith. As one who attempts to integrate education in theology with training in fine art, I've found them both to be most helpful and worthy of consultation.
